Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Worth Sharing
May 26, 2004 11:09 AM   Subscribe

Remarks by Al Gore. Long, but worth it.
posted by mosch (93 comments total)

 
Now that's a speech!

WooHoo!
posted by nofundy at 11:47 AM on May 26, 2004


I wonder how that speech will play when he gives it--it looks great on paper, but he's never been the best speaker. I'm also not clear on who the audience will be for the speech--seeing as how it's sponsored by MoveOn.org, it looks like it's designed to be red meat for liberals (though that red meat is oh so tasty, isn't it).

Considering that I read through the whole thing wishing that he'd been this full of piss and vinegar four years ago, this ending was interesting:

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability.


The first time I can think of that he's publicly demonstrated that degree of dissatisfaction with the 2000 election results.
posted by Prospero at 11:54 AM on May 26, 2004


We have seen the pictures. We have learned the news. We cannot unlearn it; it is part of us. The important question now is, what will we do now about torture. Stop it? Yes, of course. But that means demanding all of the facts, not covering them up, as some now charge the administration is now doing. One of the whistleblowers at Abu Ghraib, Sergeant Samuel Provance, told ABC News a few days ago that he was being intimidated and punished for telling the truth. "There is definitely a coverup," Provance said. "I feel like I am being punished for being honest."

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration.

To me, as glaring as the evidence of this in the pictures themselves was the revelation that it was established practice for prisoners to be moved around during ICRC visits so that they would not be available for visits. That, no one can claim, was the act of individuals. That was policy set from above with the direct intention to violate US values it was to be upholding. It was the kind of policy we see - and criticize in places like China and Cuba.


Not mincing his words here.
posted by y2karl at 11:54 AM on May 26, 2004


Worth Sharing

Not really...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:55 AM on May 26, 2004


oh fuck me. [he exclaims in exasperation]. one can see the roots of the abu ghraib behavior in any middle school locker room. i'm not excusing it, for christs sake, i'm saying YOU ALL LOVE IT AND YOUR HYPOCRITICAL ASSES MAKE ME SICK.
posted by quonsar at 11:59 AM on May 26, 2004


well, not really ALL of you. just making a point.
posted by quonsar at 12:04 PM on May 26, 2004


"And the worst still lies ahead. General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the Marine Corps, said 'I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss.'" - Al Gore.

"...the German people ought already to have gained a gigantic victory instead of finding themselves on the brink of the abyss." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
posted by brownpau at 12:05 PM on May 26, 2004


Quonsar, I honestly don't know what you're implying I love. I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but could you explain your accusation more thoroughly, so I might be able to respond?
posted by mosch at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2004



posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:13 PM on May 26, 2004


Some comments are reserved for the in-crowd.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:13 PM on May 26, 2004


mosch: He already said "not _all_ of you". I'd suggest using that exit. You don't want the wrath of quonsar.
posted by neckro23 at 12:14 PM on May 26, 2004


Gore has provided an excellent analysis of our present situation.

On preview: Steve, you are right this is a speech with the power of the atom bomb.
posted by caddis at 12:14 PM on May 26, 2004


Y'know, it scares me a little, but I'm kind of with q on that. NOT THAT IT EXCUSES ANYTHING, but from my limited experience, I'm guessing that sort of behavior goes on not just more often than we think, but more often than it doesn't - in wartime in particular.

Give immature men a high degree of power over others in a highly pressurized, poorly supervised, often hate-filled situation, and...you're surprised it happens? cf: locker rooms, fraternities, prisons, etc.
posted by gottabefunky at 12:16 PM on May 26, 2004


Finally!!!!

Someone tells it like it is. Bush has made me ashamed to be american.
posted by zia at 12:17 PM on May 26, 2004


Someone tells it like it is. Bush has made me ashamed to be american.

So Gore isn't an American? I'm confused.

Me, I'm happy to be an American. I'm angry at GWB for being a son of a bitch, but things change and he will be replaced sooner or later. I'm sure there are other places for you to live if we all shame you that much.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:25 PM on May 26, 2004


Yeah! Love it or leave it!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:30 PM on May 26, 2004


The usual suspects will no doubt line up on either side of this speech, and it likely won't change a damn thing. However, for the first time, a public figure has articulated the outrage and shame that I have felt since Bush started preparing us for the invasion of Iraq.

As far as every time I hear some Republican at work tell me that Kerry has no plan, otherwise they might consider voting for him, I will point them to this. The only plan can be to try to fix all that which Bush has destroyed in the past 3+ years, before it's too late.

Anyone that reads this with an open heart and mind, and still asks "why do you liberals hate America so much" really deserves a foot in his ass. Not only was this an impassioned plea for change, it was an eloquent expression of love of country as I have read in some time.
posted by psmealey at 12:31 PM on May 26, 2004


Thumbs up. An interesting speech, and well-written; I love my vitriol with a side of eloquence, though I agree that this might not come out quite so well when he's making red hot catholic love to his microphone.

I'm gonna love hearing him deliver the "dominance is as dominance does" line in his mildly-Gumpish voice.
posted by Potloaf at 12:40 PM on May 26, 2004


Not really ... [Gore-Strangelove-shot] ... Yeah! Love it or leave it!

So, Steve@... feel like actually telling us something about what you think instead of sending vauge telegraphs that are open to interpretation as mere Ironism [tm]?
posted by lodurr at 12:47 PM on May 26, 2004


Give immature men a high degree of power over others in a highly pressurized, poorly supervised, often hate-filled situation, and...you're surprised it happens? cf: locker rooms, fraternities, prisons, etc.

Well, I suspect most of that surprise is of the Captain Renault variety: "I'm shocked -- shocked, I say! -- to find abuse of power in this black-budget interrogation factory...."

So, yeh, to toot the same tune i toot whenever this comes up: These folks did things that could be expected, given power structures, yada yada, but that don't mean we don't punish them.

To coin a phrase: There's no law of conservation of sadism. You can reduce the amount of it, with diligence and forebearance. That was lacking: From the Army hierarchy, from the junior officers on up; from the congress, who rubber-stamped everything; from the media, who ate up the embediment-potion with a spoon; and from us, who let all of the above get away with it all.
posted by lodurr at 12:52 PM on May 26, 2004


I like the speech, it's angry, but tempered. Gore seems to identify a strategy that the democratic party should use to unseat W from office: focus on his failures to keep America safe, free and respected by the world community.

It almsot seems that by losing (or conceding) the election Gore has grown as a leader. His recent statements don't ride fences - they are well presented critiques of the current administration's inability to lead effectively.

PS: Ignore steve@, he's a good guy, but has little to offer this conversation.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:58 PM on May 26, 2004


Very interesting speech. It's eloquent. Bold. I, like others, believe his remarks re: Kerry accurately articulate the anti-Bush crowd's frothing support of the ABB concept.

Just a question, though, I may have simply missed it - in what medium is the speech going to be? Is it going to be broadcast at all, or just played on the moveon.org website and maybe soundbyted (soundbit?) on random news programs?
posted by oog at 1:04 PM on May 26, 2004


I'm tingling. Really. This is so good. Thanks for the post mosch. I SO needed to read that.
posted by squirrel at 1:12 PM on May 26, 2004


Yeah what a great speech. I'd love to deliver this speech with all the passion I could muster, and I hope that when Al delivers it, he doesn't hold back his emotions at all.

You go, Al! Take it to 'em! _|m|
posted by zoogleplex at 1:35 PM on May 26, 2004


At least three times in as many weeks I have been called "anti-American," "traitor," or "unworthy of the right to vote" because of my views on Bush's international policies. (Everything from the UN, to Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, "Old Europe", etc. etc.)

Not all conservatives resort to this level of hate speech when confronted with someone with an opposing viewpoint. I just seem to have a knack for finding the ones that do.
posted by andreaazure at 1:40 PM on May 26, 2004


Did Al Gore write the speech? Or was it written by a professional speechwriter? Not that it makes much of a difference, but I would really like to know.
posted by miguelbar at 1:42 PM on May 26, 2004


I was there when he gave this speech today at NYU, and he did very well. A bit of glib teleprompter-reading at the beginning, but by the time he was listing people who ought to step down, he was shouting and had the crowd on its feet, again and again. His personal conviction was evident, as was his palpable anger at the current administration.
posted by muckster at 1:43 PM on May 26, 2004


Is a Kerry/Gore ticket possible? I have not heard rumblings of such a thing.
posted by H. Roark at 1:51 PM on May 26, 2004


C-SPAN has video of the speech online.
posted by Hlewagast at 1:56 PM on May 26, 2004


steve at linwood.

you are:

" A stupid or contemptible person; an idiot."

if you were able to do a reverse-definition lookup on the OED, you'd see what I really thought of you first.
posted by n9 at 1:58 PM on May 26, 2004


Drudge is running this story under the headline "GORE UNHINGED", with a goofy ass picture of Gore. Funny!
posted by fillsthepews at 1:59 PM on May 26, 2004


Excellent speech. Al, never let anyone shut you up.

Though I admit it would be nice if Al could borrow the voice of say, James Earl Jones, to deliver it.

Now that is a richly satisfying fantasy.
posted by orange swan at 1:59 PM on May 26, 2004


Get this: Susan Sontag and quonsar, agreeing at last.
posted by muckster at 2:00 PM on May 26, 2004


Bush has made me ashamed to be american.

How sad that one man can change your feelings so easily. How sad that you seem to think everything America has to offer is lost because of the politics of one person, regardless if dem or republican.

Is a Kerry/Gore ticket possible?

I'm sure the republicans are hoping so.

Bless Al Gore. No matter the quality of the speech, his voice always reminds me of a saturday night skit.
posted by justgary at 2:01 PM on May 26, 2004


Andrea, was this online or in real life? What kinds of people were these, friends, co-workers, etc? I am curious about your dilemma.
posted by chaz at 2:01 PM on May 26, 2004


quonsar and gottabefunky, you're absolutely right, what happened in Abu Ghraib was predictable.

Which is the point.

If I can put two and two together and come up with abuse and torture, then someone who was in charge should have been able to do the same. And that same someone should also be held responsible, along with the kids who did the deed itself.

Whomever that someone is. It could indeed go all the way up to Rumsfeld, or maybe even W himself. But I'm not the guy in charge of figuring that out. I'm just responsible to do my best to ensure that the government does.
posted by jeremy at 2:09 PM on May 26, 2004


Well, like Al said: Lynndie England wasn't the one who decided to ditch the Geneva Conventions.
posted by muckster at 2:12 PM on May 26, 2004


Off the subject a little, was anyone else bothered by the grammatical and spelling errors throughout the speech? Not that it matters: it was written to be spoken and heard. But I'd think that the moveon.org folks would have had someone read it and edit it a little so "grown men" weren't accidentally morphed into "groan men."
posted by jeremy at 2:15 PM on May 26, 2004



How sad that one man can change your feelings so easily.


Agreed. It is sad. I would hope that the current administration had to work pretty hard to fuck things up this badly though -- so I wouldn't say that it was easy.
posted by n9 at 2:19 PM on May 26, 2004


So, Steve@... feel like actually telling us something about what you think instead of sending vague telegraphs that are open to interpretation as mere Ironism [tm]?

as resident telegraphic-irony overlord I say

what is your point? that Steve is using Irony and you have discovered that this blog is closer to telegraphy then not?

quonsar and gottabefunky, you're absolutely right, what happened in Abu Ghraib was predictable.

Which is the point


that is not the point, the point is to not allow it to happen again.

PS: Ignore steve@, he's a good guy, but has little to offer this conversation.


well is that the "in" thing to do. your a good guy to el

I like the speech, it's angry, but tempered.

Dick Clarke in his book, "Against all Enemies" (foreign and domestic) ((HEHHEH)) said that Al Gore can do "mad" real well, like theatre which this article is. I mean if Dick Clarke asserts that Saddams only act of terrorism directed at the U.S. was the ASSASSINATION attempt on Bush I, what can you deduce from that. Well, is assassination terrorism? Clarke thinks so...which shows what kinda OED genius he is...which brings us back to his Gore character observation, Does Al do angry good.

well this is all just ancillary bullshit ain't it. which brings us to Als' real motivation....exposure
posted by clavdivs at 2:41 PM on May 26, 2004


...edit it a little so "grown men" weren't accidentally morphed into "groan men."

I'm sure it passed the spill chequer. There's no need to to put actual human effort into things these days, right?
posted by bashos_frog at 2:46 PM on May 26, 2004


your a good guy to el

Awww. Shucks.

Why would Gore want any more exposure? He's not running for office, Kerry is.

This isn't theater, threat level orange®™ is theater.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:03 PM on May 26, 2004


that is not the point, the point is to not allow it to happen again.

Duh.

I was just saying that part of the process of "not allow[ing] it to happen again" is finding out who was responsible and holding them responsible.
posted by jeremy at 3:07 PM on May 26, 2004


Thumbs up. I think he said what needs to be said: "...President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism..." And "...asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush..." to resign before even more damage is done.
posted by michaelonfs at 3:23 PM on May 26, 2004


The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration.

Logical fallacies aside, how would Al explain that UN troops are buying sex from teenage refugees in Congo? Obviously there must be some administration-level policy responsible for these acts. It in fact must be traced all the way up to Kofi Annan, and then, shouldn't we be demanding the immediate resignations of those below him? Coupled with the oil-for-food scam, one might ask, "What does Kofi have to do to get fired?"
posted by David Dark at 3:26 PM on May 26, 2004


it's good to see that the complete inability to find (or to plant, or both) those "imminent danger" wmd's, the massive torture of Iraqi prisoner, the 800+ American dead and 4000+ American wounded (some of them sevrely handicapped for the rest of their lives), the Iraqi civlian dead, the sheer disaster of the Iraqi mission haven't managed to ruin Steve at Linnwood's good spirits.

it's also funny that back when things seemed to go pretty well for his buddies (like, the midterm elections, looks like 2,000 years ago doesn't it) Steve@ used to hang around here much, much more often, to enlighten us with his wisdom.

but yeah, at this point the throwaway sarcastic comment is the last refuge of, ahem, Steve@Linnwood. that ever-growing mountain of (unnecessarily murdered) corpses must be funny as hell, I guess.

on preview:
heh, David Dark manages to blame UN-related bad things happening in Congo to Al Gore. why not Hillary Clinton?

again, if thousands of people hadn't needlessly died, you guys would actually be funny as... hell.
posted by matteo at 3:35 PM on May 26, 2004


Yes, and businessmen from L.A. are buying sexual favors from coked up hookers in Compton. But you'll notice, they aren't raping prisoners of the great liberation. What, other than misdirection and excusing the obvious wrong, is your point, David?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:37 PM on May 26, 2004


Well, I'm not an (north) american, but it looks like Gore is a reason for all of you be PROUD of yourselves. It's a hell of a speech, very direct, very strong, politically sharp and round. It's oxygen in suffocating times, a relief for people who (still) take USA as one of the great countries in the planet. He did a good job leaving the usual partisan bullshit and all easy electoral reasoning to come up with a Kennedy-like speech. There's hope.
posted by nandop at 3:39 PM on May 26, 2004


Although they're both on the other side of the line, there is a difference between prostitution, and torture.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:39 PM on May 26, 2004


Rush responds to Gore (speaking of not using a copy editor ...)

I guess those naked pyramids are just not in the national interest to Algore.

i wish i lived in Algore.

interesting that Limbaugh references John Yoo.

I speak for more of this nation than Algore does

heh.

apologies for the snarkiness, but Janice Karpinski looks like a spectre of death.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:43 PM on May 26, 2004


oh, yes, I almost forgot. regarding Gore's speech (Republican humor fascimates me so much that I seem to lose my train of thought):

it's interesting how Gore appears to have found his inner liberal (and his inner bare-knuckle politician) a little too late in the game (I mean, from possibly pro-life Southerner Young Turk and dutiful servant of the military-industrial complex to anti-Nixon comments in the first few paragraphs of one's middle age speeches? not so bad).

but after all, 5-4 must still hurt a lot. he probably has the right to be angry. but what's his constituency now? what's the game plan? to be a taller Howard Dean (Dean still has the bigger neck, tho)? at this point Gore can't run for anything except the presidency and I don't see him getting nominated anytime soon (2008? bah).
but it's probably good therapy. good for him.
posted by matteo at 3:47 PM on May 26, 2004


clavdivs, I put to you that the point really IS that these abuses WERE predictable - and therefore avoidable. Many things could have been done at all levels, from enlisted up to the C in C, to keep this from happening, but they were not done, and not only not done, but WILLFULLY ignored by the command structure from the top down.

I.E., this never should have happened, and it's the fault of the Administration that it did, and they should be held accountable.

Of course we shouldn't let it happen again. But it didn't have to happen and most definitely should not have. Many of us knew it COULD happen and feared it WOULD happen, and said so - apparently including a large majority of the professional military officer corps - and we were all ignored. So it happened.

Lets make the perpetrators pay the price - ALL of the perpetrators.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:49 PM on May 26, 2004


"I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."

Did I just hear a call for impeachment, or was it my imagination?
posted by MetalDog at 3:51 PM on May 26, 2004


Absolutely superb. And even rarer these days, SANE.

This is like the third excellent speech written by Gore linked here over the past few months. Who knew the guy had it in him? If Gore had only written/spoken like this before the election, I'll bet a lot more people would have actively voted FOR him rather than just AGAINST Bush.
posted by rushmc at 3:52 PM on May 26, 2004


If Gore had only written/spoken like this before the election, I'll bet a lot more people would have actively voted FOR him rather than just AGAINST Bush.

i don't think he had the same material to work with. in between regular vacations, the Bush administration can pack a heck of a lot of incompetence into 3.5 years.

all John Kerry has to do is come up with a few, specific plans that capitalize on Bush's horrible foreign relations and he's golden. oh yeah, and blame the recession on Bush.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:59 PM on May 26, 2004


Al Gore isn't Al Gore anymore, and I mean that in a good way. Remember in the early Wrestlemania's, when you knew Hulk Hogan would win, but he was always getting his ass handed to him early on? Inevitably, whatever chump thought he could take the Hulkster would reach this point when he had him pinned for two seconds, or he had just smacked Hulk in the head with a folding chair/bell. It would seem that the Hogan was going to lose, until he would stand up, puffing wildly, and do this thing where he swirled his hand around in a spiral that ended with the hand cupped at his ear (to absorb the cheers of th Hulkamaniacs, presumably). Then he would totally flip out and kick the other guy's ass.

You remember that? That's why Al Gore always wears the ripped yellow t-shirt these days.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:04 PM on May 26, 2004


From the GOP response:
Al Gore served as Vice President of this country for eight years. During that time, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed US citizens on at least four different occasions including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole."

"Al Gore’s attacks on the President today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia.
Not sure why their critique doesn't apply to Bush.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:04 PM on May 26, 2004


David I know you actually don't care about prostitutes in Congo and are just using them to make a half-baked argument but...

there have been sex-trade problems in the UN for a long time, and Annan is responsible in some way, especially if it can be proved that he knew about these abuses of power and did nothing about them, or if he tacitly encouraged them. If he just didn't know about them but failed to approve policies that might have led to their never happening int he first place, then he also deserves some level blame, because he is the leader and leaders need to take responsibility.
posted by chaz at 4:11 PM on May 26, 2004


Worth Sharing

Not really...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:55 AM PST on May 26


There ya go again Steve at Linnwood, with your post describing your own post, and not the topic at hand.

This one paragraph is quite the hook:
How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.

I'm just not sure that hook is set quite right.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:29 PM on May 26, 2004


Kikaracha, what's worse is that their response doesn't address any of the points raised by Gore. It's tu quoque. Weak.
posted by muckster at 5:06 PM on May 26, 2004


Al,

You lost.

Get over it.

Move on and find your life's work.
posted by Oxydude at 5:23 PM on May 26, 2004


Yup, muckster, that's framing at its best/worst. One wonders how long the GOP will continue to get away with that tactic, but when you don't have the facts on your side, you have to resort to parlor tricks to stay in the debate.
posted by psmealey at 5:24 PM on May 26, 2004


Oxydude, you aren't seriously intimating that Al, having been Vice-President of the United States of America, should just shut up about the political career that is his chosen life's work, just because he lost one electoral cycle ... are you? Are you really suggesting that Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, shouldn't speak about the state of the country, or offer critique about the path that the politics of this nation, in which he has had a hand as both Congressperson and Vice President, are following? Are you really stupid enough to suggest that Al Gore just shut up and go away, when he has obviously found his life's work?
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:51 PM on May 26, 2004


clavdivs, I put to you that the point really IS that these abuses WERE predictable - and therefore avoidable. Many things could have been done at all levels, from enlisted up to the C in C, to keep this from happening, but they were not done, and not only not done, but WILLFULLY ignored by the command structure from the top down.

The second day of the ground offensive I predicted that the U.S. would lose 1000 (deaths) people before Iraq regains sovereignty. The predictability is not the issue, prevention is not the issue. What should be done to have this not happen again is the issue. (unless one thinks the pictures were leaked as some sort of psy-op which is not likely)

Also, we would not be in Iraq as an aggressor if Iraqs neighbors and even the world community did something about Saddam long ago. Does blame for this start at the the top? Does all the blame fall upon the U.S. ? as someone like matteo would contend? Good questions and only history can glimpse into this complex issue. But metafilter is not interested in that, for the most it is interested in members expressing their outrage and unwise assertions about something they have little or no understanding.
posted by clavdivs at 6:10 PM on May 26, 2004


it's also funny that back when things seemed to go pretty well for his buddies (like, the midterm elections, looks like 2,000 years ago doesn't it) Steve@ used to hang around here much, much more often, to enlighten us with his wisdom.

I used to hang around here much, much more often, to enlighten you with my wisdom when I was unemployed. Now that I have a job, I don't have as much time to waste on this place. You know, booming economy and all, lots of over time....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:14 PM on May 26, 2004


I.E., this never should have happened, and it's the fault of the Administration that it did, and they should be held accountable.

they are to some extent and one solder has been sentenced already and the general basically relieved of her command. I'm sure more sentences will follow. They are accountable to the american people and if all of us do not like it there is impeachment. Congress could censure the president also. would what i believe your version of accountable is similar to what these solders did. revenge. Accountability will happen in november so go and vote your portion.
posted by clavdivs at 6:15 PM on May 26, 2004


{gives the colonel high five as the clav now has steady work}
but still steve, these wankers do not want to learn anything nor do they consider anything approaching rationality when matters presidential are concerned.

this is why I like Mr. Dark....why Mr. Dark. well thats a long story. see, grandma and grandpas parents were of different everything, politics, religion, business but they always addressed (the men) another as Mr. Bowes or Mr. Pryor.
respect. i do not always agree with him nor even you but I respect you both.
now...if i could only have more respect for myself i'd be set.

(same goes for Mr. Cooke but he hates me guts so i say it anyway)
posted by clavdivs at 7:01 PM on May 26, 2004


I heart Al Gore.
I most royally un-heart his campaign staff that persuaded him to distance himself from Clinton and in doing so, cost him Arkansas, Tennessee, and the election.

I still believe in the Electoral College. I'm not pissed about Florida. I'm pissed about WV, TN, AR, and NH.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:07 PM on May 26, 2004


Mr. Clavdivs:

I'm a wanker sometimes, for sure, but I certainly always want to learn something (even many things) and I also try my very best to be as rational as possible when matters presidential are concerned. I'm one of those folks who doesn't fit very well into any political box. Not that I think that's anything to be proud of. It's just the way I am.

Anyway, judging from his posts today thus far, I think it's funny that you're talking to steve about considering rationality when anything is concerned. So far (though I wasn't around much, apparently, when he gained his reputation) all I've heard from him is a couple of very tired party-line conservative cracks. The pic of Gore with the mushroom cloud behind him is hilarious, but again, it isn't really about learning anything or using rational thought.

And I don't mean to disrespect him--I'm just commenting on what I see.

I hope with all my heart that you aren't suggesting that anyone who thinks differently from you isn't interested in learning or being rational. There are a good number of irrational idiots on both sides of the aisle. And (thank God) a good number of rational, goodly folks.

There are some unnecessary comments in this thread for sure. Especially the ones that lower themselves to plain-old name calling. That kind of crap sounds empty from anyone.
posted by jeremy at 7:18 PM on May 26, 2004


heh, David Dark manages to blame UN-related bad things happening in Congo to Al Gore.

broken english more easy: no blame al gore. Me draw parallel. heh.

Yes, and businessmen from L.A. are buying sexual favors from coked up hookers in Compton. But you'll notice, they aren't raping prisoners of the great liberation. What, other than misdirection and excusing the obvious wrong, is your point, David?

Some details in case you didn't read the article:
The Independent has found that mothers as young as 13 - the victims of multiple rape by militiamen - can only secure enough food to survive in the sprawling refugee camp by routinely sleeping with UN peace-keepers.

Testimony from girls and aid workers in the Internally Displaced People (IDP) camp in Bunia, in the north-east corner of Congo, claims that every night teenage girls crawl through a wire fence to an adjoining UN compound to sell their bodies to Moroccan and Uruguayan soldiers.

The trade, which according to one victim results in a banana or a cake to feed to her infant son, is taking place despite a pledge by the UN to adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude to cases of sexual misconduct by those representing the organisation.
These are not businessmen in Los Angeles paying crackwhores for blowjobs, these are international troops on a humanitarian mission who are trading sex with thirteen year old girls for a fucking banana. The point, my friends, is if you feel, as Mr. Gore stated in his speech, that Bush et al are responsible for the prison scandal, and if you feel that Bush et al should be impeached or forced to resign, then you must draw the same conclusions about the United Nations and the administrators who are responsible for the corrupt programs like Sex-For-Food in Congo.

So do you? Let's see some consistency around this joint for once.

David I know you actually don't care about prostitutes in Congo and are just using them to make a half-baked argument but...

You know nothing of me. Stick to the facts.

there have been sex-trade problems in the UN for a long time, and Annan is responsible in some way, especially if it can be proved that he knew about these abuses of power and did nothing about them, or if he tacitly encouraged them.

Well, you can't make the case that Bush or Rumsfeld knew about these abuses and did nothing about them, because, in fact, the opposite happened. They immediately launched an investigation and relieved the soldiers of duty way back in January. So far, none of the soldiers in Sex-For-Food have even been reprimanded.

If he just didn't know about them but failed to approve policies that might have led to their never happening in the first place, then he also deserves some level blame. . .

Good luck getting that argument to stick in a court of law.
posted by David Dark at 9:17 PM on May 26, 2004


I often wonder what sort of person actually believes in 'my country right or wrong,' what sort of person would prefer to sweep evil things done in their name under the carpet rather than face them and work to halt and reverse them, and how it is that that sort of person is amongst the most likely to characterize themselves as a 'patriot'.

I've never met one, except on the internet. I wonder where these people come from, and how they got to be so grindingly stupid.

Or, what Stirling said, basically, although I believe that using phrases like 'the right wing' obscures more than it illuminates.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:48 PM on May 26, 2004


The point, my friends, is if you feel, as Mr. Gore stated in his speech, that Bush et al are responsible for the prison scandal, and if you feel that Bush et al should be impeached or forced to resign, then you must draw the same conclusions about the United Nations and the administrators who are responsible for the corrupt programs like Sex-For-Food in Congo.

Okay, David, I'll call your bluff. Lets say I do want Kofi's head on a platter (ignoring, of course, the HUGE difference in military administration and command between the UN and the US military). How does that absolve Bush, or more to the point, Rumsfeld? Are you saying that we're being unfair for wanting Rummy's resignation before we scream about UN misdeeds? Hey, little puppy, Rummy works for me, Kofi doesn't. If you have a problem with the UN, then make your case. But your expectation that I should absolve Rumsfeld's crimes, or that Al Gore should, just because you have another pet issue is plain old misdirective bullshit.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:54 PM on May 26, 2004


Yes, and businessmen from L.A. are buying sexual favors from coked up hookers in Compton. But you'll notice, they aren't raping prisoners of the great liberation. What, other than misdirection and excusing the obvious wrong, is your point, David?

Way to be a first-class asshole, Wulfgar. Nothing like equating 13-year-old mothers who've been raped by soldiers and now find themselves forced to fuck their "rescuers" to feed their motherfucking kids to rich cokehead hookers in an attempt to win points in some asinine political dick-waving contest to start the day off right, eh? Fuck you, you sick sadist sheep.

And, while I thought David Dark's point was pretty fuckin' clear, if you really insist I'll rephrase it in words of two syllables or less: Bush's blatent fucked up bullshit is leading people to ignore the more subtle fucked up bullshit of the people who oppose him. This is bad. Thinking that it's only "those people" who abuse their power and run corrupt outfits is what got us where we are.

On preview: Hey, little puppy, Rummy works for me, Kofi doesn't.

If he doesn't work for the members of the UN's constituent states, who the fuck does he work for? Or is democracy only a quaint local custom impractical for use on a global scale, where dictatorship is so much more convenient and the consent of the governed is a happy fiction? You and I pay his salary as much as we pay Bush's.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:00 PM on May 26, 2004


And all that from a former Gore voter...

In other ironic news this evening,

When Ph.D. candidates of the future write the literary history of the Bush presidency, the day that a Republican administration became the bad guy in a Tom Clancy book will surely stand out as a cultural Rubicon crossed.
posted by y2karl at 10:08 PM on May 26, 2004


y2karl, that's thrice you've linked to that comment from 2001 without elaborating. Do you have a thought you'd like to express to me?

Oops, I forgot. You don't do that.
posted by David Dark at 10:41 PM on May 26, 2004


Asshole fuck dick motherfucking fuck fuckin' fucked bullshit fuck!

And I really mean it, too.

*sigh*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:47 PM on May 26, 2004


How sad that one man can change your feelings so easily. How sad that you seem to think everything America has to offer is lost because of the politics of one person, regardless if dem or republican.

One man? Nah. There's always another idiot out there willing to fuck things up worse than the guy before him. What makes me personally discouraged, to the point of being ashamed of my country and contemplating emmigration, is that 40-some-odd percent of the public still thinks he's doing a fine job.

This isn't even about ideology anymore. It's more like an IQ test. Do you still support the president? Aah, I see. Well then, no, I don't want you handling my Star Wars figures, because I know you'll break them or put them in your nose, you drooling idiot.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:14 PM on May 26, 2004


> Rush responds to Gore (speaking of not using a copy editor ...)
>
> I guess those naked pyramids are just not in the national interest to
> Algore.

I never read Rush before. Boy is he painful to read/listen to. Just
perusing his stuff, my blood pressure is rising.

./A
posted by NewBornHippy at 11:24 PM on May 26, 2004


Plenty of people have spent the last three and a half years, paying less or more attention to each Bush fuckup -- sadly, more rather than less -- and wondering 'what would Gore have done in this situation?'

None more, I'd imagine, than Al Gore.

I think that explains a lot.
posted by riviera at 11:55 PM on May 26, 2004


Regarding the comparison between the US prison torture and UN sex-for-food problems made by David Dark and others: The comparison is valid in that we should be consistent in demanding that leaders of security forces anticipate and prevent the abuses that seem to emerge almost universally when people are given such complete power over other people. In both cases, follow that up the chain of command as far as you need to and put someone more competent in power.

I do think, though, that the comparison ignores an important point: I'm not aware that the UN has in place any policies that encourage torture or other human rights violations to "soften up" detainees (for purposes of extracting information or what have you). If it's found that US policies of this type trickled down (or were handed directly) to the guards in Abu Ghraib, then in my opinion the US is guilty of something uglier than the shameful neglect demonstrated by the UN. It's one thing to fail in preventing abuse, and it's another to adopt abuse as policy.

Regarding the comparison of the UN's non-response and the US's response last January: The distinction fails to recognize that the US ignored reports from detainees, then ignored reports from the Red Cross last fall after their visit to the prison...they moved on the issue only after a reservist let his superior officers know that the abuse was being photographed. So I think it's reasonable to wonder whether the investigation was a response to reports of abuse or a response to reports that the abuse was being documented.

In addition, the US seems to be going to great lengths to avoid addressing the problem by holding that Geneva Convention standards don't apply to some detainees, moving to place US forces outside the reach of Iraqi or international justice, shipping some prisoners off for interrogation to countries where torture is routine so as to avoid dirtying their own hands, etc. This isn't the sort of behavior we'd expect from a country that is acting to prevent human rights abuses by its military forces.

Calls for consistency are justified, but that would involve expecting the US to first abandon the policy of actively promoting abuse. Then we can deal with neglect in preventing it.
posted by boredomjockey at 1:26 AM on May 27, 2004


I distinctly recall Kofi Annan saying the Geneva Convention and other Human Rights laws didn't apply since September 11, 2001, just like the leadership in the US has done.

As such statements are contrary to enforcing and encouraging respect for basic human rights then it follows that we should have Kofi Annan's head on a pike.

Just like David Dark implies, there's a direct correlation between torturing prisoners of war and exploiting the general populace, especially when the leadership encourages the lawlessness.

'Nuff said. We can now infer David Dark supports the summary execution of Rumsfeld, BushCo, Wolfiwitz and all other neocons responsible for the Iraqi debacle. Something others can agree on.

[/sarcasm]
posted by nofundy at 7:31 AM on May 27, 2004


Interesting postscript on this piece is that the "liberal media" (i.e.: Maureen Dowd at the Times, as well as Brian Lehrer's stand-in on WNYC this am), is already calling this speech Gore's Dean scream.

It's sad that when a relatively mainstream figure decides to speak his mind/conscience in a frank manner, he's immediately marginalized. Funny: everyone complains about politicial double-speak or "slickness" from our politicians, yet we pillory them when they try to be candid.
posted by psmealey at 8:25 AM on May 27, 2004


Way to be a first-class asshole, Wulfgar. Nothing like equating 13-year-old mothers who've been raped by soldiers and now find themselves forced to fuck their "rescuers" to feed their motherfucking kids to rich cokehead hookers in an attempt to win points in some asinine political dick-waving contest to start the day off right, eh? Fuck you, you sick sadist sheep.

IshmealGraves, hopefully you've calmed down enough by now to see the obvious error in what you've written here. The point isn't that anything is equal, as David would have us believe, it's that these events (Iraq, Congo, Compton) are UNRELATED. David played the old apologist standby card of: If you're going to be outraged by X than you MUST be even more outraged by Y (though no logical or causal link is, or even can be shown, to draw between X and Y). As opposed to these "rich cokehead hookers" of which you speak, my example easily could have been that rich American business men are cheating on their golf scores. David's argument then becomes, if you're outraged by the abuse at Abu Graib, then you MUST be even more outraged by rich American business men cheating on their golf scores! Why? Because David said so to derail the thread. Its apologist illogical voodoo, meant to sucker the silly into an emotional game of outraged equivalences. And it would appear that you bit, hook, line and sinker.

Bush's blatent fucked up bullshit is leading people to ignore the more subtle fucked up bullshit of the people who oppose him. This is bad. Thinking that it's only "those people" who abuse their power and run corrupt outfits is what got us where we are.

No, that wasn't David's point at all. David's point was to force everyone's hand at what unrelated events we should or shouldn't be outraged by. From his own fingers comes this:

So do you? Let's see some consistency around this joint for once.

Consistency. Consistently showing outrage based completely on what others define as what we should be outraged by. And why would he want that? You said it yourself:

to win points in some asinine political dick-waving contest

There, is that clearer now?
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:19 AM on May 27, 2004


Interesting postscript on this piece is that the "liberal media" (i.e.: Maureen Dowd at the Times, as well as Brian Lehrer's stand-in on WNYC this am), is already calling this speech Gore's Dean scream.

Did you actually watch it?



Can you blame them?
posted by David Dark at 9:40 AM on May 27, 2004


I blame them, and you, for trying to divert our attention from Gore's arguments. Did you even bother to read the speech?
posted by muckster at 9:49 AM on May 27, 2004


Interesting postscript on this piece is that the "liberal media" (i.e.: Maureen Dowd at the Times, as well as Brian Lehrer's stand-in on WNYC this am), is already calling this speech Gore's Dean scream.

If that's the case, that's too bad. I've long thought that Gore would be the perfect attack dog for the Dems. I was excited when I read about this speech.

Sure, a lot of people would dismiss him as a sour grapes sour-about-losing thing, but unless he wants to run for president in the future, he wouldn't have anything to lose by getting down and dirty. And I thought the Dems would have a lot to gain from it. But maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.
posted by tippiedog at 9:51 AM on May 27, 2004


Jeremy.

I can be king wanker and your right, I'm happy to see you provided some useful remarks. I try and fail like others but it comes down to one trying to add something. Steve@ did, IMO. Irony, some humor, he did not go off on a rant. This enough for me and knowing something about Gores background helps one to see that steves humour is not unbased.
I love a good argument but what is important is to realize mistakes and try to halt the name calling. I too, do not subscribe to any one political principle. What may shed some light in to head-spinning aspects of politico-military affairs was the NSC team and the 96' bombing of Kohbar towers in Saudi, read up on that and see how close we came to bombing the heck out of Iran. I have eased up on my criticism of Clinton and his nat'l security aspects if only a bit on some things he tried to do but his failure in other aspects of security is appalling. And i criticize Bush I for breaking the axiom of war layed down by Sun-Tzu. That being not to let your enemy in control of the field if he is in route and being certain the people would rise up against saddam was risky as a plan B. (first gulf war)
posted by clavdivs at 10:12 AM on May 27, 2004


Wow. great link - thanks for this. Al Gore is without a doubt a true patriot, praising the country while criticizing the current administration. The whole section about checks and balances and what the founders intended is spot on.

All the ad hominem attacks on Gore because of the 'lost' election only exaggerate the lack of coherent argument from the Bushies...
posted by skechada at 10:25 AM on May 27, 2004


Can you blame them?

Heaven forbid our politicians should show some passion.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:07 PM on May 27, 2004


Just as long as they don't go banging their shoes on the podium, it's fine by me.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:13 PM on May 27, 2004


i criticize Bush I for breaking the axiom of war layed down by Sun-Tzu.
When you do battle, even if you are winning, if you continue for a long time it will dull your forces and blunt your edge; if you besiege a citadel, your strength will be exhausted. If you keep your armies out in the field for a long time, your supplies will be insufficient. Master Sun
Bush Sr. saw rightly that taking the battle to Sadam would fracture our coalition and lead to the kind of guerilla tactics we're seeing now that have always proven to be effective against invading forces.
The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it...Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful -- those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are best of all. Master Sun
But thank god we now have an incompetent military leader who will sate our blood lust rather than a nuanced world diplomat who understands the region and the battle field.
posted by willnot at 12:20 PM on May 27, 2004


good counter willnot. But we could have destroyed his republican guards or captured them intact so they could not fight another day. plus, there were other options then a full march on Baghdad to frogmarch saddam out. A deal with some generals could have rooted him out. Fracture the damn coalition I say. What were we worried about, angering Syria?

but still good axioms but I disagree with your citations from the master in this case.
posted by clavdivs at 1:10 PM on May 27, 2004


lust rather than a nuanced world diplomat who understands the region and the battle field.

you mean Schwarzkopf?
:I
posted by clavdivs at 1:14 PM on May 27, 2004


« Older Fear of the FCC forces a college radio station to ...   |   Pizza rules broken in Brunei, ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments